Free EMR Newsletter Want to receive the latest news on EMR, Meaningful Use, ARRA and Healthcare IT sent straight to your email? Join thousands of healthcare pros who subscribe to EMR and EHR for FREE!

Doctors Aren’t Tuned In To Blockchain News

Posted on March 28, 2018 I Written By

Anne Zieger is veteran healthcare consultant and analyst with 20 years of industry experience. Zieger formerly served as editor-in-chief of and her commentaries have appeared in dozens of international business publications, including Forbes, Business Week and Information Week. She has also contributed content to hundreds of healthcare and health IT organizations, including several Fortune 500 companies. Contact her at @ziegerhealth on Twitter or visit her site at Zieger Healthcare.

Sure, there are doctors who are knee-deep in clinical informatics work. Others may not work in IT full-time, but they keep an eye on IT developments and feel comfortable using new technology.

Then, of course, there are physicians who only interact with technology when they must (and yes this is probably the biggest group). They skim or even ignore technology articles in their favorite magazines and journals, and you’re not likely to see them comparing notes on the advantage of one EHR vs. another. In other words, when it comes to health IT, they’re definitely not trendy.

Even so, I was surprised to see how many physicians were out of the loop when it came to blockchain technology. According to a poll by physician-oriented site SERMO, which asked whether blockchain was ready to enter the healthcare world 25% said yes and 28% said no, but a far larger number (47%) responded that they weren’t aware of this technology.

I have a few theories as to why this is the case:

  • Though many vendors are experimenting with integrating blockchain into EHRs, working models are far from common at this point
  • Most physicians are overwhelmed by using EHRs as they currently exist, and aren’t too likely to contemplate adding even more complexity to their platform
  • Too few of their actual peers — practicing doctors working in traditional settings — have attempted to explain the basics of blockchain tech
  • Even high-level health IT experts are still grappling with the problem of how, exactly, healthcare tools can benefit from incorporating blockchain

The truth is, it’s not too surprising to see that many doctors have tuned out blockchain discussions, and probably other bleeding edge technologies like AI as well.  Until these technologies are more mature, and vendors can demonstrate a day-to-day use for them, why would your average physician take time out of their crazy day to ponder what the health IT whiz kids are talking about this week?

And honestly, until someone can demonstrate that blockchain offers real benefits to practicing physicians, I think they’re actually wise to step back from it for the time being. Unless they are natural techies who really want to experiment with blockchain options, there’s little for them to gain from pursuing a topic. Right now, it doesn’t affect them much.

Yes, the time will come when blockchain features are incorporated into EHRs, and vendors can demonstrate why this matters. In the meantime, physicians’ indifference seems very logical.

EMR the 4 Letter Word

Posted on March 23, 2012 I Written By

John Lynn is the Founder of the blog network which currently consists of 10 blogs containing over 8000 articles with John having written over 4000 of the articles himself. These EMR and Healthcare IT related articles have been viewed over 16 million times. John also manages Healthcare IT Central and Healthcare IT Today, the leading career Health IT job board and blog. John is co-founder of and John is highly involved in social media, and in addition to his blogs can also be found on Twitter: @techguy and @ehrandhit and LinkedIn.

Adam Sharp, MD, Founder of par80 and SERMO, has come out swinging on his relatively new blog for his new company par80. One of his first blog posts talked about why EMR is a four letter word for most doctors. The thing is he’s right in many ways.

The first thing he does is debunk the 50% EHR adoption number that’s gone around and been propagated by the ONC and others:

The 50% adoption rates seen in the first link reflect the presence of ANY type of an EMR-like technology. While it is a great headline for sure, the second link shows that this is an overly broad declaration. When we look at “fully functional systems,” meaning they are being used for a full work-flow solution, we get numbers in the low teens instead. (When you subtract out unique situations such as Kaiser, the VA, and a few large independent doctor networks, I suspect the actual number is much lower.)

I personally put EHR adoption at about 25%, but now we’re quibbling over small percentages. Either way, it’s quite low. Adam describes the real challenge that EHR vendors face and how they can remove the 4 letter word connotation of EMR:

Widespread adoption of an EMR (or multiple compatible EMRs) that is intuitive and easy to use, that empowers the end user and patients, and that actually helps to make the healthcare system more efficient would be a good thing for doctors, patients, and the industry. However, unless we recognize what the ultimate goals are and better involve the people most critical to their effective use (physicians), I believe Jonathan’s prediction will be true and cash-for-clunkers applied to the healthcare sector will turn out about as successful as that other government program…TARP.

I think this trend is changing for many EHR vendors that really are trying to focus on the physician, but sadly have this huge distraction called meaningful use. Plus, we are having more doctors write about their good experience with EHR. The more doctors that can say that their desk is clean, their life is better, and they have more time, the more we’re going to see EHR adoption really increase.

Unfortunately, there’s still far too many poorly implemented, poorly selected and poorly accepted EHR implementations out there. This is a tough problem to solve particularly in this government incentivized environment. I think I read recently in a passing tweet something about HIMSS soliciting for more EHR success stories. I don’t think a manufactured list of EHR success stories is going to do the trick. Although, it’s true that EHR failure stories spread faster than EHR success stories.

What do you think will shift the tide of EHR adoption? Is the EHR incentive money going to be enough to change it? We’ve certainly seen some increase in EHR adoption from the EHR stimulus, but will it be enough and in the right direction?

Is EMR a Four-Letter Word? You decide

Posted on January 23, 2012 I Written By

Priya Ramachandran is a Maryland based freelance writer. In a former life, she wrote software code and managed Sarbanes Oxley related audits for IT departments. She now enjoys writing about healthcare, science and technology.

For quite some time now, I’ve nursed my own doubts about:
– how effective EMRs are (disastrous in the short term, long term they’re supposed to make life easier, but we haven’t seen any evidence of that yet)
– why physicians are being paid to implement something that makes logical sense (you need something to nudge people out of status quo. And probably in the government’s thinking, what better use for taxpayer dollars, right?)

I came upon this blogpost, provocatively titled Why EMR is a four-letter word to most physicians. Adam Sharp, Par8o (“pareto”, not “par 80”) founder references this post from the Healthcare Blog. The discrepancy in the rates between adoption of any EMR is mind-boggling. It was projected to be close to 56.9% in 2010, vs. adoption of a fully functional EMR (projected to be close to 10.1% in 2010). (I’m not using the 2011 rates because the rates for fully functional EMR adoption in 2011 are not listed).

A reason Sharp gives for incentives and threats of decreased payment are “the industry and physicians have known for years that EMRs do not improve productivity and that it is highly questionable that EMRs lead to better patient outcomes”. While I would agree that in the short term, there is decreased productivity, I’m not so sure you can dismiss there is no productivity increase over the long term. This report about a UC Davis study for example, shows that the loss of productivity was just one month for internal medicine, and that productivity increased to pre-EMR implementation levels in the next six months. The not-so-good news is that productivity levels declined for pediatricians and family practices.

I interpret these findings like this: for specialties where there is loss of productivity, sure, the whole exercise needs a rethink. But in cases where your productivity is at par with your pre-EHR levels, I think there is a hidden benefit that detractors are more than willing to gloss over – the availability of patient data. Data is the holy grail – it’s up to us to figure out whether and how we use it.

Sharp also imagines some doomsday scenarios – of EMR vendors with uncanny abilities to do as they please.

“The goal of EMRs is to wrestle control of healthcare away from the doctor-patient relationship into the hands of third parties who can then implement their policies….by simply removing a button or an option in the EMR.”

Maybe I’m turning turncoat here and letting you guys in on the best kept secret of the IT industry, but every vendor I’ve worked for, past and present, figuratively quakes in his IT boots when it comes to contract renewal. Even for COTS products, vendors actually customize things here and there for customers, till you have 25 versions of the same code, all just to keep their customers happy and paying. While I’m pretty sure there are rogue vendors who can give you the best EMR nightmares money can buy, I also do think customers can, and do, help rein in errant ideas. In other words, vendors can’t simply remove buttons and options or randomly start charging you for stuff, not unless you let it happen. And you, the customer, hold the purse strings, ergo YOU, not the vendor, call the shots.

I don’t quite find myself agreeing with the cynical conclusion of the post which is that the point of EMRs is to wrest control away from doctors and patients into the hands of third parties who wish to regulate choice and eligibility. But there’s plenty there that’s food for thought. Go check it out.